The The evidentiary difficulties (or deficiencies?), in the acts of sexual violence, as a differentiating criterion in the evaluation of the evidence in the criminal doctrine of the Supreme Court of Justice of Bolivia. Supreme Order 179/2020 of February 17
Las dificultades (¿o deficiencias?) probatorias en los hechos de violencia sexual, como criterio diferenciador en la valoración de la prueba en la doctrina penal del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia de Bolivia. Auto Supremo 179/2020 de 17 de febrero
As dificuldades probatórias (ou deficiências?) nos atos de violência sexual, como critério diferenciativo na avaliação das provas na doutrina criminal do Supremo Tribunal de Justiça da Bolívia. Ordem Suprema 179/2020 de 17 de fevereiro
| 2022 | |
|
evidentiary difficulties rational assessment of the test gender perspective differentiated assessment criteria standard of evidence dificultades probatorias valoración racional de la prueba perspectiva de género criterios diferenciados de valoración estándar de prueba dificuldades probatórias avaliação racional das evidências perspectiva de gênero critérios de avaliação diferenciados padrão de evidência |
|
| Español | |
| Universidad Católica del Uruguay | |
| LIBERI | |
|
https://revistas.ucu.edu.uy/index.php/revistadederecho/article/view/2682
https://hdl.handle.net/10895/4240 |
|
| Acceso abierto |
| Sumario: | The present work establishes reasons to conclude that the application of differentiated criteria of assessment and sufficiency of the evidence in the acts of sexual violence, based on the so-called “evidentiary difficulties and limits” that the recent doctrine inserts by the Supreme Court of Justice of Bolivia in Supreme Order 179/2020 of February 17, not only is it not justified, but it is incompatible with the system of rational evaluation of evidence, regardless of the effect on the guarantee and principle of innocence, among others, driven by what is considered a misuse of the international jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court. To this end, a research question was asked, developed through the compilation and analysis of the different theories related to the test and its assessment, as well as the use of the gender perspective. |
|---|
